JUDGMENT D. P. Uniyal, J. - The two applicants have been convicted under Section 457 I.P.C. and each of them sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment. They were prosecuted in respect of an offence of theft committed on the night between November 28 and 29, 1964 at the house of one Bhulla. One of the miscreants was apprehended on the spot, while others escaped. From the statement of Sri N. N. Ojha, Station Officer, it appears that he received reliable information that the two applicants were in possession of stolen property. He accordingly proceeded to their houses and made a search as a result of which he made recoveries of certain properties which, according to the prosecution, were stolen properties. The two applicants were strangers and were not known to the prosecution witnesses. They were accordingly put up for identification. The properties recovered from them were also got identified. The applicants were correctly picked out at the test parade and the articles were also correctly identified by the inmates of the complainants house. The courts below believed the evidence of the prosecution and convicted the applicants as said above. 2. The plea raised by both the applicants was that the properties recovered from their possession belonged to them. In the list of stolen properties submitted by the complainant the articles recovered from these two applicants were mentioned as having been removed during the course of the theft. So far as the recovery from the house of Hausila accused is concerned it was admitted by Sri Ojha, Station Officer, that a case under Section 109 Cr.P.C. was pending against this accused at the time. It is, therefore, likely that the Station Officer was interested in creating evidence against him by making this recovery. The properties which were recovered from him were clothes, including a rug. There was no distinguishing mark in the clothes recovered from the possession of Hausila and therefore, it could not be said that they were necessarily the property stolen from the house of Bhulla. In the circumstances, I am not impressed by the evidence of identification of property. The fact that the applicant Hausila was being run down under Section 109 may be a circumstance that the police was able to secure the largest number of identifications against him. In the circumstances I do not consider that the prosecution evidence against him is free from doubt. The fact that the applicant Hausila was being run down under Section 109 may be a circumstance that the police was able to secure the largest number of identifications against him. In the circumstances I do not consider that the prosecution evidence against him is free from doubt. I accordingly give him the benefit of doubt and acquit him. 3. So far as Jarbandhan applicant is concerned, there is apart from the evidence of identification, the recovery of silver ornaments besides clothes, from his house. It is significant that the two silver ornaments recovered from his possession are identical with those mentioned in the list of stolen properties given by the complainant. The recoveries were made by Sri Ojha who had no knowledge of theft having been committed at the house of Bhulla. Consequently, it could not be said that the recoveries were purposive. The defence set up by this accused that these articles belonged to him cannot, therefore, be accepted. Even if there was not sufficient evidence in support of his having participated in the offence of theft it cannot be doubted that he was in possession of stolen property and, as such, he would be guilty under Section 411, I.P.C. I however, set aside his conviction under Section 457 I.P.C. and instead convict him under Section 411 I.P.C. The sentence of 2 years R. I. imposed on him is reduced to one year's R. I. 4. The result, therefore, is that this revision application succeeds in part. The conviction and sentence passed on Hausila applicant are set aside and he is ordered to be acquitted. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other matter. The conviction of the applicant Jarbandhan under Section 457 in set aside and instead he is convicted under Section 411 I.P.C. The sentence of 2 years R. I. passed on him is reduced to one years R. I. He shall serve out the sentence awarded to him.